MLB Statistics

Historical (past-seasons) WARP is now based on DRA..
cFIP and DRA are not available on a by-team basis and display as zeroes(0). See TOT line for season totals of these stats.Multiple stints are are currently shown —Click to hide.

YEAR

Team

Lg

G

GS

IP

W

L

SV

H

BB

SO

HR

oppTAv

PPF

H/9

BB/9

HR/9

K/9

GB%

BABIP

TAv

WHIP

FIP

ERA

cFIP

DRA

DRA-

WARP

1988

ATL

MLB

12

12

64.0

2

7

0

74

33

37

10

.253

101

10.4

4.6

1.4

5.2

31%

.298

.305

1.67

5.22

5.48

130

8.33

200.6

-2.6

1989

ATL

MLB

29

29

208.0

12

11

0

160

72

168

15

.254

102

6.9

3.1

0.6

7.3

41%

.246

.231

1.12

3.04

2.94

91

3.40

81.8

4.1

1990

ATL

MLB

34

34

231.3

14

11

0

206

90

170

20

.261

105

8.0

3.5

0.8

6.6

42%

.272

.243

1.28

3.64

3.85

98

4.41

102.7

2.1

1991

ATL

MLB

36

36

229.7

14

13

0

206

77

148

16

.258

109

8.1

3.0

0.6

5.8

45%

.270

.236

1.23

3.45

3.80

101

4.39

101.5

2.3

1992

ATL

MLB

35

35

246.7

15

12

0

206

80

215

17

.252

102

7.5

2.9

0.6

7.8

43%

.268

.235

1.16

2.96

2.85

81

3.26

79.1

5.1

1993

ATL

MLB

35

35

243.7

15

11

0

208

100

208

23

.254

101

7.7

3.7

0.8

7.7

43%

.268

.241

1.26

3.79

3.62

91

4.25

91.7

3.7

1994

ATL

MLB

21

21

134.7

6

10

0

120

48

113

15

.254

98

8.0

3.2

1.0

7.6

42%

.271

.242

1.25

3.99

4.14

96

4.56

91.9

2.0

1995

ATL

MLB

29

29

192.7

12

7

0

166

72

193

15

.259

97

7.8

3.4

0.7

9.0

47%

.288

.235

1.24

3.25

3.18

80

3.46

70.9

5.1

1996

ATL

MLB

35

35

253.7

24

8

0

199

55

276

19

.253

99

7.1

2.0

0.7

9.8

47%

.280

.204

1.00

2.56

2.94

61

2.46

48.5

9.8

1997

ATL

MLB

35

35

256.0

15

12

0

234

63

241

21

.257

98

8.2

2.2

0.7

8.5

48%

.297

.225

1.16

3.00

3.02

77

3.07

63.8

7.8

1998

ATL

MLB

26

26

167.7

17

3

0

145

44

173

10

.253

95

7.8

2.4

0.5

9.3

50%

.300

.219

1.13

2.63

2.90

69

2.39

49.5

6.4

1999

ATL

MLB

29

29

186.3

11

8

0

168

40

156

14

.257

94

8.1

1.9

0.7

7.5

48%

.289

.225

1.12

3.08

3.19

80

2.91

56.5

6.6

2001

ATL

MLB

36

5

59.0

3

3

10

53

10

57

7

.260

96

8.1

1.5

1.1

8.7

53%

.284

.234

1.07

3.22

3.36

81

3.09

64.0

1.6

2002

ATL

MLB

75

0

80.3

3

2

55

59

24

85

4

.267

97

6.6

2.7

0.4

9.5

54%

.274

.201

1.03

2.30

3.25

71

2.79

59.8

2.2

2003

ATL

MLB

62

0

64.3

0

2

45

48

8

73

2

.266

99

6.7

1.1

0.3

10.2

46%

.286

.177

0.87

1.48

1.12

55

2.46

51.5

2.1

2004

ATL

MLB

73

0

81.7

0

1

44

75

13

85

8

.267

94

8.3

1.4

0.9

9.4

47%

.309

.211

1.08

2.61

2.76

69

3.07

63.3

2.2

2005

ATL

MLB

33

33

229.7

14

7

0

210

53

169

18

.258

98

8.2

2.1

0.7

6.6

49%

.278

.227

1.15

3.23

3.06

86

2.93

63.1

6.6

2006

ATL

MLB

35

35

232.0

16

9

0

221

55

211

23

.264

94

8.6

2.1

0.9

8.2

48%

.299

.238

1.19

3.40

3.49

76

3.01

61.3

7.1

2007

ATL

MLB

32

32

205.7

14

8

0

196

47

197

18

.258

101

8.6

2.1

0.8

8.6

47%

.304

.231

1.18

3.13

3.11

74

3.21

66.3

5.7

2008

ATL

MLB

6

5

28.0

3

2

0

25

8

36

2

.258

95

8.0

2.6

0.6

11.6

49%

.324

.231

1.18

2.31

2.57

63

2.53

53.9

0.9

2009

BOS

0

8

8

40.0

2

5

0

59

9

33

8

.260

112

13.3

2.0

1.8

7.4

43%

.383

.306

1.70

4.98

8.32

90

4.51

96.7

0.5

2009

SLN

0

7

7

38.0

1

3

0

36

9

40

3

.258

89

8.5

2.1

0.7

9.5

40%

.311

.238

1.18

2.68

4.26

84

3.62

77.7

0.8

2009

TOT

MLB

15

15

78.0

3

8

0

95

18

73

11

.259

101

11.0

2.1

1.3

8.4

42%

.351

.275

1.45

3.86

6.35

87

4.08

87.4

1.3

Career

MLB

723

481

3473.0

213

155

154

3074

1010

3084

288

.257

99

8.0

2.6

0.7

8.0

46%

.283

.231

1.18

3.19

3.33

83

3.45

74.9

82.3

Statistics for All Levels

'opp' stats - Quality of opponents faced - have been moved and are available only as OPP_QUAL in the Statistics reports now.Minor league stats are currently shown —Click to hide.

1 year/$0.4M (2009). Signed by St. Louis as a free agent 8/19/09 (Smoltz to earn pro-rated share of $0.4M Major League minimum, or about $102,732). Post-season award bonuses.

1 year/$5.5M (2009). Signed by Boston as a free agent 1/13/09. $5.5M in bonuses based on days on active 25-man roster: $125,000 for his first day. $ 35,000 per day, June 1 - Oct. 3. $500,000 for Oct. 4. Award bonuses. $0.5M assignment bonus if traded. DFA by Boston 8/7/09, released 8/17/09.

Chances Andy Pettitte makes it to the Hall with voters making steroid users wait a few years on the ballot?(Brian from College Station, TX)

Another one from the Twitter files. I think Pettitte has a significantly uphill battle ahead of him. Even with a strong postseason resume, he doesn't have a Cy Young award or much in the way of All-Star appearances (3), and he's just 92nd in JAWS among starting pitchers, with a peak that's 15.6 points off the standard and a career that's 13.9 short. He comes nowhere close to measuring up to the wave of non-300 win guys reaching the ballot in 2013-2015 - Schilling,Mike Mussina, John Smoltz and Pedro Martinez. He's been one of my favorite players, but I wouldn't vote for him. (Jay Jaffe on the Hall of Fame)

You talk a lot about a pitcher's personal signature. Sometimes that personal signature has attributes that leaves a pitcher more attune to injuries.
However, as you mention in your recent Strasburg article, Strasburg seemingly will continue to use his troubling mechanics. I assume most MLB pitchers feel this way because a major mechanical change could rid them of their MLB ability.
I assume most pitchers learn their personal signature in little league and are resistant to a change in their mechanics by the time an MLB dream is evident. If this is the case, is the most an MLB team could do to help avoid injury is just minor tweaks that might delay the inevitable?(SaberTJ from Cleveland, OH)

Great question. Signature is somewhat innate, and most player's find a signature moreso than learn one. The resistance to change has as much to do with the re-training of muscles and joints as it does the difficulty of finding the appropriate timing of a new delivery. Some pitchers will also gladly make the trade of injury risk for performance, as they may not be able to succeed at the highest level without the elements that put them at risk (i.e. scapular load and pitch velo). John Smoltz had a pronounced scap load and inverted-W in his delivery, and he had various arm woes throughout his career, but my guess is that he would gladly do it all over again if given the choice. (Doug Thorburn)

While most people say Roy Halladay is the best pitcher in baseball, am I crazy to think he's only a borderline Hall Of Famer right now?(Andrew Stoeten from drunkjaysfans.com)

Given that we've seen just one starter get into the Hall with less than 300 wins over the past 20 years, I don't think you're crazy to say that at all. Halladay's at 190, and I think he's going to have to push well into the 240-250 range to satisfy the traditionalists. It helps that there's going to be a whole wave of non-300 win pitchers coming along (Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Mike Mussina and Curt Schilling) who are pretty fair candidates in their own rights, with considerable hardware and postseason resumes of their own. I think he gets there, but he's not a lock. (Jay Jaffe)

Hey Jay -
Do you feel that the Hall of Fame will start to give guidelines to the voters sooner rather than later when it comes to steroids? I have seen comments regarding how quickly Bagwell shrunk in size as to why someone was not going to vote for him (Chicago Tribune). As Phil Rogers says, 580+ writers, 580+ opinions on the matter.
Thanks(Brian from Tinley Park)

Good question. I think we're years away from that, because while there are several candidates about to hit the ballot whose careers have been linked to PED use, there are also a bunch of milestone candidates whose elections are a virtual lock. Even without Barry Bonds and Roger Clmeens, you'll still have Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson and Craig Biggio on that score, as well as solid candidates without the milestones OR PED connections such as John Smoltz and Curt Schilling. I think we're years away before the Hall feels a need to interject itself into the debate on the guideline grounds. (Jay Jaffe's Hall of Fame Special)

Hmm. I'm going to whiff on this, probably. It's hard to remember former gifts on demand. A family friend once gave me a piece of paper that Juan Marichal had signed. Just a scrap, about as big as my pinkie, because that was all the person had with him at the time. I really like that present because it was so worthless, materially speaking. When I was a kid collecting baseball cards, memorabilia became very money-based, like I had this deluded sense that I was investing and that I was somehow wealthy because I got a $7 John Smoltz rookie card in a pack. Baseball-card collecting was fun, but it was a particular sort of laborious fun. That Juan Marichal scrap was just 100 percent unsellable, though, so I never had to worry about it the way I worried about my cards, or about other memorabilia I had. I could just look at it.

One year, I got in trouble and my parents took away all my baseball cards as punishment. I managed to smuggle one card free (Jose Oquendo, 1988 Topps), but the rest were taken and hidden. For Christmas, they gave me my cards back. That was amazing at the time, but now that I think about heyyyyyyyy that present sort of sucks.

For my birthday this year, I got this shirt. I like it: http://www.tauntr.com/content/just-fire-it-through-internet-shirt

How many more "Halladay like" seasons does Halladay need to have before he's a lock for the Hall Of Fame?(Kristina from Arizona)

A lock? I'd say 3-4. The voters haven't been very forgiving of guys with less than 300 wins (1 in 20 years, Blyleven) and they're about to get a slew of them for review (Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina) along with the 300-winners (Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson). The Cys are a great building block but Halladay still has work do do. (Jay Jaffe)

Is Earl Weaver's old strategy a moo point (you know, what a cow says) now that teams get too scared to move the young starter out of the pen after the initial introduction to the league? (JT from Michigan)

I mentioned this earlier, but my hope is that the success the Rangers had with C.J. Wilson--ie, someone who was not John Smoltz coming down from the mountain--should encourage teams to be a little more creative on this score. (Christina Kahrl)

Do you see any free agents with solid fantasy value out there? Jermaine Dye, Elijah Dukes, Pedro, am I forgetting somebody?(dangor from New York)

John Smoltz, at least as a reliever, is somebody who can help if he's so inclined, though I guess he's content to go the broadcast route for the moment. A healthy Jarrod Washburn can certainly sponge up a useful number of innings. David Weathers is a handy reliever to have around even at his age. Carlos Delgado might still have something left once he recovers from hip surgery. Gary Sheffield is still a badass who can be a useful bench bat if so inclined, and Joe Crede can pick it at the hot corner if his back is right. (Jay Jaffe)

Speaking of difference makers in the stretch drive, how much difference does John Smoltz make for the Cardinals? Do you take his five scoreless innings in San Diego seriously? How about the contention that he was tipping his pitches in the AL but that that's fixed now?(Bill from New Mexico)

The "tipping pitches" thing sounds for all the world like happy talk, and seems incongruous given how many swing-and-misses he got. I can't get excited about hammering the Padres in San Diego. That's probably the best possible scenario for any pitcher. Smoltz's problems came on contact, which was very hard during his time in Boston; we'll have to see more to reach conclusions. (Joe Sheehan)

The belief that the era of the 300-game winner ended with Randy Johnson seems to be pretty widespread. What kind of career numbers will the 21st-century starting pitcher have to post to be perceived as a "lock" Hall of Famer? Will 200 become the new 300?(David from Evanston, IL)

The BBWAA hasn't elected a non-300 win starting pitcher since Ferguson Jenkins in 1990, so it's unclear exactly how good one will have to be. I examined this question last year and concluded that John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina and Pedro Martinez -- all with 200+ wins, high strikeout totals and a solid handful of other accomplishments -- are all qualified to go in, and that Pedro's probably got the best shot from a traditional standpoint due to his high peak. (Jay Jaffe)

Is there anything wrong with John Smoltz other than bad luck? His strikeout, walk, ground ball, and line drive rates are all very healthy.(David from Evanston, IL)

While those components are healthy, his homer rate is terrible. I'm wondering how much of that is because he's serving up meat to the hitters, or just bad luck from a small sample. I will tell you that the Red Sox defense isn't doing him any favors. Their defensive efficiency is awful (thank Jason Bay, no Crisp coming in during the late innings, and a one-legged Mike Lowell for that one) and Smoltz's BABIP reflects that as well. I'm holding out hope, but I wouldn't say I'm overly optimistic. (Marc Normandin)

While I generally enjoy tour Q&A articles, I sometimes wish you would ask more hard-hitting questions. For example, when John Smoltz says that QuesTec and other innovations are "taking out the individuality of the umpires to call the game the way they see fit", that would seem to require a follow-up question along the lines of "Are you suggesting that the strike zone shouldn't be identical from umpire to umpire, or from pitcher to pitcher?"(clete6 from Red Sox Nation, unfortunately)

Thanks, Clete, both for the praise and the criticism/suggestion. I have received similar feedback from a few others, and I do agree that at times I should be a little more aggressive in my questioning. I think it's important to pick and choose my spots, as that really isn't my style, but you make a vadid point. (David Laurila)

Do you believe John Smoltz will be a front of the rotation add for the Red Sox? (Jim from Portland)

Front of rotation? No. Useful? Maybe. Better than Clay Buchholz or Michael Bowden? I don't understand that part of it. Look, I liked the plan of a three-headed rotation slot with Penny, Smoltz and Buchholz expected to throw 220 innings in some combination. It all went right - all three are effective, but why stick with it when there's suddenly a surplus? I have to think they'll trade Penny, though Buchholz's antics are starting to wear thin and he could bring a bigger return. (Will Carroll)

Tim Hudson due back later this year from TJ...starter or reliever...any word on his progress?
(DB from DC)

September and role TBD. There have been the occasional mentions of John Smoltz when it comes to Hudson's return, but aside from the logo on their caps, I'm not sure they have much in common. (Will Carroll)

Hi Joe, thanks for the chat. Fantasy baseball question: I can pick up John Smoltz, but doing so would put me just a few dollars below our league salary cap, limiting moves I can make later on in the season unless I make trades to move salary. Do you think Smoltz will be coming back and putting up decent numbers in the second half the season? Or is picking him up just too risky?(Dennis from Monterey Park, CA)

I think it's risky just because of the Sox' pitching depth. I expect Smoltz to be effective when healthy, but at some point they have to call up Buchholz, right? And even Brad Penny has started pitching well. It might be tough for Smoltz to carve out a role. (Joe Sheehan)

Hi Christina, thanks for reading my question. Do you think the Red Sox erred by signing Brad Penny? I'm of the belief that Clay Buchholz is ready now, and with John Smoltz (supposedly) on the way, I'm not seeing a way short of a ton of injuries that Buchholz makes it up to Boston this year. Oh, and great idea for BP Idol. (mattymatty from Philly)

No problem matty, thanks for taking the time to drop by and ask it. ;)

I think Penny was probably the pitcher too far, but to some extent it's defensible. They didn't make a major commitment, it's not a mistake the way "winning" on Burnett was for the Yankees, they still control Buchholz, and in the AL East arms race, keeping up with the Joneses is a natural enough impulse. I think the Sox are fine; as I noted in TA, that pen's ridiculously stacked.

As for Idol, I had nothing to do with the concept, I just get to tell people they look great up there for coming up with it. As is, it's wonderful to see how much enthusiasm there is for the idea, and my hope is that we do find the next Keith Law or Keith Woolner or Dan Fox, the new James Click or Caleb Peiffer. (Christina Kahrl)

The Red Sox are reportedly interested in John Smoltz. Do you think he's a good fit for the 5th spot in the rotation?(Nate from Miami)

He'd be a great signing, because he'll either be good or hurt, and he only costs money. The Red Sox have so much pitching that they can make an upside play without relying on him to be healthy. If he shows up down the stretch, great. (Joe Sheehan)

Smoltz yes, and well he should. Even from a traditional stat standpoint, his 3000 Ks, 210 wins and 3.25 ERA are impressive numbers, particularly when one considers he missed an entire year due to Tommy John surgery and spent about 3.5 seasons as a closer. His JAWS numbers are excellent as well (122.8 /58.5/90.7).

Ortiz is a tougher case. He didn't have his first great year until Age 27, and he doesn't look like a guy who's built to shine in his late 30s. From a JAWS standpoint, he's at 49.6/45.7/47.7, pretty low because he's only got four years of even 6+ WARP under his belt. Now, if he helps the Sox win another World Championship or two before he retires, he may get a Puckett Exemption for his short, high-impact career, but I wouldn't want to bet on that. (Jay Jaffe)

After the recent Santana trade, several commentators (including some on this site) defended the Twins GM, essentially saying, "He's no idiot. He had to make a deal and the fact that he accepted such mediocre prospects means it was the best deal available." This logic makes sense, but doesn't it call into question many of the public/expert analysis and evaluation of trades -- if we acknowledge that we don't have all the information, and we assume that (most) GMs are smart people, how and when can we fairly evaluate the intelligence of various trades?(thegoldenbear from Newport Beach)

This is a very interesting question, isn't it?

First off, let's start off with the idea that trades can be evaluated immediately at all. Here's a question that sounds obvious, but I don't know that it really is: What makes a good trade? You do want to improve your team, clearly, but a lot of times, even that definition is cloudy. Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz? Well, a flag flies forever, right? Andersen for Bagwell, OroscoFossasRincon for Giles? There are some clear winners and losers in those two, but how many trades are really like that? If a team makes a trade for three prospects who are really outstanding, but none of them work out because the club has a systemic shortcoming in player development, was it really a bad trade? I don't know.

Second, who's interested in evaluating a trade 'fairly'? I don't think I am. I was always of a mind that the writing, attitude, and (often attempted) humor at BP served the purpose of making analysis enjoyable to read. Fairness was pretty low on the list, if it was there at all. It did make for some awkward introductions on occasion later, but evaluting trades at all is an exercise in debate; I don't know that there's any merit in fairness, except to build future credibility for your point of view.

Of course, front offices need to at least be able to do it.... (Gary Huckabay)

Joe, I think Bernie Williams might be someone who is overrated because he was on the Yankees and won titles.(JKGaucho from DC)

There's absolutely no evidence that being on particular team helps you in the BBWAA voting. Cardinals, Giants and Yankees are overrepresented in the Hall of Fame because the Hall wasn't bright enough to do away with the Veterans Committee once it had served the purpose of catching early-baseball players and the backlog of qualified 20th-century candidates.
Bernie Williams is a Hall of Famer to me, although I admit I may be too close to it. Postseason performance does matter, and it matters more now in the era of three-level playoffs. Williams, Mariano Rivera, John Smoltz and Curt Schilling are just a few of the players whose resumes are stronger than a JAWS-flavored analysis would indicate. (Joe Sheehan)

Joe! Love the work you do. During class, I just think about baseball (which helps explain my grades last semester). Can you answer this question for me- John Smoltz: Hall of Famer or not?(Jonathan from Springfield, MO)

BP Roundtables

I've just learned that beginning at 2pm ET, I'll also being able to update all of our readers on my kid's band practice in the basement. Getting my first taste of John Smoltz as an analyst on MLB Network -- not as bad as expected. (Kevin Goldstein)